Firearms Risk Protection Act Could Stick Gun Owners With $10,000 Fine

While the Socialists are finally coming out about the reality of the costs that Obamacare will bring and the utter monstrosity it is, others of the Socialist Democrat Party are pushing for gun owners to be forced to purchase liability insurance for gun owners. Those that don't could face fines of $10,000. We told you that when you open the floodgates of allowing the Federal government to mandate purchasing a product there would be more to come. Maloneycare is just another in a long line of legislation that will be coming down the pipe.

Representative Carolyn Maloney (D-NY) introduced her bill, H.R. 1369, along with eight other Socialists in the Democrat Party saying it would be "the first bill to require liability insurance of gun buyers nationwide."

The Firearms Risk Protection Act of 2013 requires gun owners to have "a qualified liability insurance policy" before they can even buy a gun, a clear violation of the Second Amendment, which Socialists swear to uphold then seek to undermine.

However, this isn't just about citizens who wish to purchase a firearm. It's about those of us who already own them. Maloney and her comrades want to impose a $10,000 fine if you don't purchase liability insurance.

The bill reads:

"It shall be unlawful for a person who owns a firearm purchased on or after the effective date of this subsection not to be covered by a qualified liability insurance policy."

It also makes it a Federal crime (another unlawful law) to sell one of your firearms to anyone without liability insurance.

In introducing her legislation, Maloney said, "For too long, gun victims and society at large have borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence. My bill would change that by shifting some of that cost back onto those who own the weapons."

This is an epic fail on Maloney's part. This is a flat out lie. Society has not "borne the brunt of the costs of gun violence." The only violence comes from humans and that violence comes in many forms. Guns don't get up and do anyone any harm at any time and her bill doesn't change anything. Society has not borne the brunt of the costs in this matter and putting this legislation in place will not change that, seeing that the majority of gun violence comes from criminals in the inner cities who will not be purchasing this insurance, but will ultimately bear the cost of their own violence and that will be in their death.

What this bill is all about is a sneak attack to have ground to come and remove your guns from your possession because you didn't purchase liability insurance. OK, yeah there's money involved too. I actually wouldn't be surprised if insurance companies were in on this legislation simply because they would receive a bit more business from it. It's very similar to the part they played in Obamacare.

With many states requiring drivers to carry auto insurance, Maloney argues that, "We have a long history of requiring insurance for high-risk products — and no one disputes that guns are dangerous."

"While many individual states are debating this issue now, it makes more sense for Congress to establish a national requirement to allow the insurance markets to begin to price the risks involved consistently nationwide," she said.

Here's the problem. Liberals think because something has made a precedent, that it then becomes justified. I have a question for those that buy into the precedent argument, where in the U.S. Constitution does the Federal government have the authority to institute such measures? This is not an issue about "long history." It's an issue of authority. If you are one that believes they are the same and that the Federal government possesses this authority to demand citizens purchase insurance, be it health or liability, I suggest you educate yourself on the fetters that are to bind the Federal government in these areas here. After all, this legislation is completely unconstitutional.

Gun Owners of America President Larry Pratt told Freedom Outpost, "Mrs. Maloney's proposal makes one wonder if she has an interest in the liability insurance industry."

"We ought to require liability insurance of politicians," Pratt said. "This is simply a measure that she has proposed that if it were law, would make it more difficult for people to own guns, particularly poor people. I thought Democrats were the champions of poor people. This is actually something that targets those that live in neighborhoods where they most need a gun, yet would make sure that the gun was priced out of reach."

When I mentioned that this could be combined with the proposed "sin tax" on firearms that would escalate the prices even more on firearms and intrude upon one's ability to even purchase a firearm to exercise their Second Amendment rights, Pratt added, "What Mrs. Maloney is not wanting to recognize is that the Clinton Justice Department published a study, which they had commissioned by some academics, has found that firearms are used some 4,000 plus times a day in self defense and what she is suggesting is, because of her tax and fewer people being able to afford a gun that crime would actually go up. The unintended consequences of gun control would be seen once again, even as it was seen in the District of Columbia, where they had a gun ban and one of the highest murder rates in the country. That murder rate has now declined since they got rid of their gun ban."